My previous lament on TGP being a bit of a black box remains. However, if one parses throughthe data that TGP provide, it is possible to compare some aspect of LNG tanker operationswith Golar's operational numbers. I have also resolved my issues on how to parse TGP's fleetin a way that makes sense. No change in the number of vessels. TGP's fleet consists of- 27 LNG tankers- 5 LPG tankers- 10 Suezmax (crude oil) tankers- 1 Handymax products tanker

However, TGP does not own 100% in each of the vessels. In fact, TGP does not own 100% interestin a majority of the LNG tankers in its fleet. I parsed the fleet previously, and had themakings of groups and did not recognize it then. So the groupings are-A. LNG vessels and LPG vessels where TGP is majority ownerB. conventional crude oil tankers and product tankerC. LNG vessels with TGP as a non-majority owner or LNG joint venture.

TGP reports in such a way that one can at least identify revenue produced by thedifferent groupings (that's actually what forced me to put LPG tankers in group A). Remembermy black-box comment? Well, I have no way of separating LNG revenue from LPG revenue.Golar's revenue also has issues- the FSRU (Floating Storage Regasification Unit) revenue is includedin total revenue. In this case, at least the annual report can provide some idea. GLNG typically identify the largest customers, so a Petrobras (with 2 FSRUs leased from GLNG) canbe identified. In a nutshell, figure out how to back out the LPG revenue from TGP group Arevenue, and the FSRU revenue from GLNG's revenue, adjusting for vessels count, one canthen compare the two companies (if that was the goal- not mine, I'm just the parser :) )

TGP is a lot more conservative than GLNG. Parent company and General Partner (GP), Teekay Corp.,will not order a vessel without a contract in place. So typically, a pending deal is signaledahead of time when TGP announces an offering. Guess who had an offering last month? :)Offering is 4.6M units, plus 700K over-allotment, so potentially about 5.3M units. I haven'tseen any newbuild announcement from TGP or Teekay, but that can be misleading. The lastthree events that led to fleet additions were equity or joint venture type deals. So maybesome other company placed the order, and now needs a partner.

The black box again. Earlier I had broken out the fleet into different projects. I supposethat's a start when trying to figure out if there are any potential mines that could blowup. Okay, to some degree it removes the group C vessels from the risk equation. Hmm! maybe "removes" is the wrong word, "reduces" might be more appropriate. For each new project, it almost seems like there's also a "location risk factor" to consider e.g. originally, twoLNG tankers were assigned to Kenai, Alaska. That facility was due to close in 2011. At leastone of the LNG tankers assigned to that facility was sent elsewhere. But then there was the Tsunami in Japan, and now LNG export has resumed.

The last deal that TGP was involved with had Marubeni as a joint venture partner, in abid to acquire eight LNG tankers from Maersk. The offering was announced in Q4 2011, butdid not get finalized until 2012. The final deal got scaled back to six LNG tankers.I think TGP's distribution coverage ratio (DCR) dropped below 1 for that quarter, but was back over 1, once the deal was finalized. I think TGP's last DCR was over 1.2, if I crunched thenumbers right. The latest offering was less than 10% dilution, so things are probably still okay with regards to the distribution.

I had a small stake in TGP through early August 2012. The price had reached my target andI couldn't convince myself that, including the new deal, TGP had a lot of upside from there.I think it is a good entity to own, but probably a bit on the over-valued side here.While I might be concerned about the Q3 dividend for other tanker companies, I think TGP'sdistribution is reasonably safe.